Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-04-06 08:21
Post by GaryGaulin
So that this forum is not left out I'm quoting the following here, for your inspiration too, amen:

Quote Jesus and others like Prophet Muhammad are role models who were way ahead in their times where their legend will live on from just their influence, good advice. Don't need supernatural divine intervention for them to exist in culture and religion as hero's of the oppressed. Arguing that some of the legend might be bigger than real-life will not make them go away.

Where science and technology influences things is the age-old question of the origin of life, our Genesis. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a clue to how our creator works and while challenging the taboo theory of you know what I ended up with a trinity to explain in the Conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Trinity  

The uncapitalized version of the word means three of something that combine into one. It was easy enough to mention this where the word helps conceptualize something that some mainstream religions try to make sense of.

Quote
From Theory of Intelligent Design by Gary S. Gaulin

Conclusion

This theoretical model for explaining the origin of intelligence and the phenomenon of intelligent cause predicts that we are an intelligent design, created by three (a trinity of) emergent self-similar levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) The behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive descendant offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, and is the primary source of learned instinctual behavior.

(2) Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. In sexual reproduction gamete cells from a father and mother are differently expressed as a sperm cell and egg cell that must combine into one complete cellular intelligence system, as required by the first level (molecular intelligence), which must embody both halves at the same time. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation.

(3) Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. A multicellular body is then controlled by a neural brain expressing all three levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly), and religious behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, migration and social differentiation.

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

It's not leaving conscious experience out of the equation and does not need a "natural selection did it" type answer to conclude this way.

The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.

Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.

Why scripture pertaining to the origin of life speaks of our Creator/God in plural form is one of the the biggest mysteries of them all. But it all makes perfect sense in scientific intelligence theory that sorts out the systematics using model to operationally define "intelligence" the same as David Heiserman (robotics) and Arnold Trehub (human brain) describe for a simplified circuit diagram, that always worked great for me too, in making progress understanding what intelligence systematically reduces down to.

https://sites.google.com/site.......del.GIF

Someone who follows a religion that tries to conceptualize a trinity from the source of consciousness and invisible to us in the behavior of matter might be able to understand it more easily, even though it is not normally considered science. Genesis remains unchanged. What does change is science, that now has a "chromosomal Adam and Eve" in it and not because I said so or the theory explained why it's just the way it is when modern science finally gets into serious "chromosome speciation" research.

You have to look at it as origin of life having always been one of the biggest questions of them all in fact it's even sacred, with it long having been said that for some reason staying in step with Genesis is the only way to make progress towards truth/science in regards to how we were created. I now have to say that it's certainly not bad for a thousands of years old origin of life theory that I only had to stay in step with that would otherwise be much harder to explain. For example where origin of life scripture instead explained our creator in singular form (like some who ridicule religion believe it should have been) there would not be the trinity puzzle that must make sense just like this in a scientific theory or else it's on the wrong track. I would then be going against religious scripture, which makes it a very hard sell and right away theology finds the theory uninteresting because of it not helping to answer their biggest questions like how there could be a trinity of intelligence systems in biology leading to where consciousness forever comes from.

Religion will adapt just fine, like it always did, thanks in part to theory to help make scientific sense of what modern religion has right along been saying in regards to the origins of life and what makes us human.

With this forum into intelligence related theory that influences the religious realm and it being Sunday I thought I would explain all this to you, so you'll know what's up, with what I have going on that influences religion in a positive way that makes intelligence science more fun in religion too. Disciples welcomed. :D
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-04-06 08:01
Post by Quack
I love straight talk.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-04-06 06:49
Post by keiths
A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote
Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.

In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."

At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.

Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.

Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)

The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.

Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
Categories: AE Public BB

Young Cosmos

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-04-06 05:57
Post by keiths
An nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog  (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.

In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."

At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.

Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.

Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)

The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.

Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-04-06 00:53
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,08:12)Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
    Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
From bottom of the page where illustration came from (not link to terms and conditions that from what I read more apply to authors who blog there):

  Quote BrainFacts.org is a public information initiative of the Society for Neuroscience, The Kavli Foundation, and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.

The BrainFacts.org blog is for opinion and conversation about what’s new, notable, or inspiring in neuroscience.

I'm not the only one using the illustration. Also, the search engine robots are collecting them, with it rather absurd to expect them to not because of what you found on another page.

Whoever drew the illustration should have put their name on it. I do not even know for sure who that is.

Where I'm now at with the computer model makes me wonder whether the field forces propelling its MyNetX,MyNetY location signal are helping to align the multiple grids. Head direction and its MyEnvX,MyEnvY location would also be an influence.

Since the Grid Cell Network model only needs one grid there is no need to get into multiple grid dynamics. It would though be best for all that to more or less on its own happen when there is more than one grid.
Categories: AE Public BB

Young Cosmos

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-05 22:50
Post by REC
Quote New Registration Procedures
Postby Hezekiah Wang » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:29 pm

A new registration process is being put in place to reduce forum spam. In the meantime, if you want to register, just let one of the current members know through your personal channels that you want to participate.

They must send me a private message with your desired username and an email address where I can send your temporary password, and I'll set up an account with temporary password. You can then change your password after you login.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-05 16:06
Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,09:12)...
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
      Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Oh noes!  Gary is being oppressed, martyred, bullied by being held to the standards of an academia he was never part of.  Being held to the standards of intellectual property rights!
The horror!  The sheer unfairness!

ROFLMAO
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-05 13:12
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (NoName @ April 05 2014,07:28)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.

So how about it, Gary?  Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"?  What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology?  What are the properties that emerge from your software?  Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.

Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze.  It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please.  Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent.  Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
  Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-05 12:28
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.

So how about it, Gary?  Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"?  What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology?  What are the properties that emerge from your software?  Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.

Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze.  It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please.  Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent.  Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-04-05 12:09
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (k.e.. @ April 04 2014,09:19)   Quote (NoName @ April 04 2014,16:22)     Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)       Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.
Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)
Gary has no ethical standards that provoke concern to him. The whole idea is more foreign than science to him. He's on a one man  mission to draw attention to his misery.
It looks to me like The Three Stooges arrived, to fix our science problem, nyuk nyuk nyuk.

I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.

If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-04-04 14:19
Post by k.e..
Quote (NoName @ April 04 2014,16:22) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12)   Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.
Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)
Gary has no ethical standards that provoke concern to him. The whole idea is more foreign than science to him. He's on a one man  mission to draw attention to his misery.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-04-04 13:22
Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 04 2014,09:12) Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.
Fair enough, although that doesn't exactly meet any standard of adequate professionalism of which I am aware.
Certainly any of my professors would have punted a paper that included a link to a source without proper footnoting/referencing.  Links, especially from repetitive-link-posting-disorder victims such as Gary, are just not good enough.  IMNSHO ;-)
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-04-04 13:12
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (NoName @ April 03 2014,12:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
In fairness to GG, and I missed it too, he does provide a link to the site where the image came from.
Categories: AE Public BB

The Skeptical Zone

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-04-04 08:52
Post by Driver
I posted that Byers comment to fstdt.com yesterday. It is not his first entry.
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-04-04 03:59
Post by Henry J
So, just tell him that other people don't have to stoop to his pathetic level of excuses...
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-04-03 21:31
Post by J-Dog
Quote (Driver @ April 02 2014,17:16) Quote (J-Dog @ April 02 2014,21:45) Quote (Driver @ April 01 2014,12:08)More from punchy writer and serial science article poster, Denyse O'Leary:

    Quote The wonderful thing about science is the way it promotes somnolent faith that the System is somehow churning out … what is that stuff it’s churning out just now anyway?

Clearly she is planning to embed the famous Monty Python sketch from "Life Of Brian" in a later post.

Well played indeed.

ETA: link
EWWWWW!

Driver - Dude!  How about a little warning - NSFB!!! (Not Safe For Brain).  I clicked on your link - expected to go to Life of Brian clip = Good.  

What I got was a link to UD = BAD!

EWWWW!
Sorry. Hope this is better:

Monty Python

Bonus
AHHHHHH YES!  Much better.  Gratias!
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-04-03 19:38
Post by keiths
At ENV, Denyse inadvertently comments on her "journalistic" career:
Quote Well, continuing failure can undermine funding too.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-04-03 17:54
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,13:40)...
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
Gee, could it be the complete lack of attribution to some other source?  You know, one of those things that actual researchers, actual scientists, even people in the humanities, are expected to do when they use material they did not produce and that is not already in the public domain?
Even in those cases, attribution is usually given just to make completely clear who did what.
Oh, silly me -- that's why there's no attribution.  Making things clear is against your standard policies and behaviors.
Never mind.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-04-03 17:53
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,12:40) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 03 2014,12:01)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 03 2014,11:42)FYI

Forgive my not having time to feed thine pee contest trolls but I'm right in the middle of the IDLab version of
Spock's Brain. I must get back to work on him. So many neurons to account for! Or sort of anyway.

I successfully transplanted the new Grid Network into the IDLab4 critter. It's Attract and Repel location behavior is now excellent. The tan color circle+dot (showing where it's internal world model location is at) heads straight for the attractor/feeder like it did in the demo program. In its internal world model is already able to get from place to place. But there is no motor controller coded into it yet, so it just slowly wanders like a zombie that loves bumping into walls.

This is where in the coding project there is no longer a center angle vector as before, which was a problem with some combinations that summed to zero degrees. There is now just its moving through the grid, where something like this (from an earlier link) is very needed:


http://blog.brainfacts.org/2013.......d_k7v0u

There is “distance”:

Distance = Sqr((X ^ 2) + (Y^ 2))

and a “direction” from Trigonometry function:

Direction = Atan2(Y/X)

The “2” indicates function code is included in Math routines to return full radian matching computer screen axis, angle 0 points right.

The illustration does not show all else the grid network could be doing besides providing distance and direction of its physical movements. But we don't have to worry about that, the computer model makes the rest of the controller transplant child's play, I think..
The folly of you mapping two-dimensional space and completely ignoring the third dimension has already been pointed out, but you outdo yourself when you describe movement as heading "SW" (presumably for southwest).
What makes you so sure that I was the one who drew the illustration?
My apologies if it wasn't you, but if it wasn't, you're still obviously using it to represent your own feeble ideas, and your "animal" can still only move in two dimensions.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sat, 2014-03-29 19:03
Categories: AE Public BB
Syndicate content